Full round up on Inforrm’s blog at this link…

Reblogged from Inforrm's Blog:

Parliamentarians are still in recess, Lord Justice Leveson has finished taking evidence for Part 1 of his Inquiry, the Michaelmas legal term has not yet begun, but there have been more than enough media law related developments to justify a mid-summer round up, including new dates for the autumn calendar.

Read more… 2,792 more words

Reblogged from Inforrm's Blog:

• 

There is no need for statutory media regulation because there are a whole range of statutory controls that presently exist, Lord Hunt of Wirral said at the launch of the new edition of McNae's Essential Law for Journalists last Friday.

Additionally, judges can fill gaps through case law, said Hunt, chair of the Press Complaints Commission. "You do have in decided cases the ability to fill gaps and we've seen that with some of the recent judgments of Mr Justice Tugendhat and before that David Eady.

Read more… 928 more words

Baroness Buscombe, who will step down from the self-regulation body in the new year this week, was at City University London to deliver the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism annual lecture.

[Update: the Conservative Peer Lord David Hunt has been named as Buscombe's successor and will take up the position on 17 October]

Following her speech, she took issue with a question from data journalist James Ball, who introduced himself as from the Guardian.

Rattled by his question about her position on enforced regulation compliance, she several times referred to the Guardian in subsequent questions, saying: “I’m worried that the Guardian, as usual, is going to misquote me”.

“Can I just ask you what you are going to tweet to the Guardian,” she asked Ball, at one point.

“I’ve been misquoted non-stop for three years by the Guardian”, she said. “It’s really boring.”

She was assured that there would be a recording of the event made available.

Ball, who is not a media reporter, asked Buscombe about her suggestion that publications should not be able to opt-out of regulation.

There should be some of “back stop” power outside the PCC, which would “demand compliance”, Buscombe had stated in her lecture.

… if a publisher is “in” the system but doesn’t like an adjudication, he is at liberty to opt out of the system altogether. This is not sustainable, either in principle or in practice.

The solution? There should be some form of back stop power, vested in another body and, given that body needs sufficient powers to demand compliance, it will, regrettably have to be one regulated by the state.

This need not nor should it in any way compromise freedom of expression or lead to some form of licensing; it is just to ensure that compliance with the system is universal and no-one can just choose to opt out.

The problem was, she later added, that the Express and Star national newspapers don’t have to opt-in to a regulation system.  They can do what they like unless someone takes them to a court of law. [Express owners, Northern & Shell were removed from the self-regulatory system in January 2011 after the company failed to renew its membership].

But, the PCC chairman said, she was fully opposed to any form of statutory regulation.

She later claimed she was “having a bit of fun” with her jibes at the Guardian newspaper.  Other suggestions in her lecture included:

• A whistleblowing system within newspapers: “ there should, as a matter of course, be a credible independent whistle blowing system in place, within all media organisations – so that any beleaguered journalist can have free access, without fear, to a second opinion as to his rights in law.”

• The development of international regulatory frameworks with varying sanctions and rules of compliance: “All websites that comply with a system could carry an internationally recognised kite mark to give the reader and viewer the confidence that it is a trusted site, as opposed to a free for all; that would, I am convinced, encourage more publishers to opt in to the system as it would attract more unique visitors.”

She called for a “need for change in culture and practice” in British media. “I do not limit this to tabloids or News International,” she said.

Buscombe defended the body’s handling of phone hacking and said she was “weary” of responding to that question. The PCC is not set up to investigate criminality, nor should it be, she added.

Earlier, in defence of the PCC’s existing sanctions, she claimed:

“I wish some critics of the PCC could hear editors when the PCC have adjudicated against them; it is not music to the ears, believe me, they hurt.”

Media blogger Jon Slattery also has a report, here.

In the first ruling of its kind, the PCC “concluded that the newspapers’ actions did not constitute “an unjustifiable intrusion” into the complainant’s privacy.”

Ms Sarah Baskerville complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article headlined “Oh please, stop this twit from Tweeting, someone”, published in the Daily Mail on 13 November 2010, intruded into her privacy in breach of Clause 3 Privacy and was misleading in breach of Clause 1 Accuracy of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complaint was not upheld.

…. Additional  complaints against both newspapers about alleged breaches of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code were also rejected.

“This is an important ruling by the Commission,” said Stephen Abell, PCC director.

“As more and more people make use of such social media to publish material related to their lives, the Commission is increasingly being asked to make judgements about what can legitimately be described as private information. In this case, the Commission decided that republication of material by national newspapers, even though it was originally intended for a smaller audience, did not constitute a privacy intrusion.”

Full Daily Mail ruling at this link…

Full Independent on Sunday ruling at this link…

Media Guardian  reports:

The commission [PCC] and the baroness [Buscombe, PCC chair] made a formal statement of regret at the high court to settle a libel action brought by Mark Lewis, one of the lawyers at the centre of the phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World. They also agreed to pay a sum for damages and legal costs, but neither side would disclose any detail.

The case involves claims about Lewis’ evidence about phone hacking given to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in 2009. The PCC, when contacted by Meeja Law, said: “We are not in a position to comment.”

Press Gazette reported that Lewis continues to pursue a case against the Metropolitan Police:

Lewis told Press Gazette: “I am very satisfied that Baroness Buscombe and the PCC have accepted my claim and expressed regret for the consequences of what she said. My case continues against the Metropolitan Police who still defend the claim. Eventually the truth will come out from the Met and I will be vindicated.”

It was a case I initially covered for Journalism.co.uk; here is a report from February when Lewis was first considering taking action. Just over a year ago in November 2009, Lewis called for Buscombe’s resignation, in a letter reproduced here.